The scenario described in (DCS Number 400-013-674) must be common to a number of holiday mobile home parks up and down the country: “…the appellant claims that the units have never been available to rent by third parties as short-term holiday accommodation…” and “…the site lacks the kind of shared facilities one would normally associate with a holiday park.” This appeal sought the removal of the condition which limited the mobile homes to occupation for holiday purposes.
Posts Categorized: Opinion
A condition attached to the planning permission for the redevelopment of a site in Buckinghamshire with six flats which sought to nullify an earlier permission for one dwelling has been deleted at appeal (DCS Number 400-013-570).
An appeal decision relating to the refusal of outline permission for “exemplar sustainable self-build development” in Cornwall shows that it takes more than vocabulary to gain permission for housing outside a development boundary (DCS Number 400-013-227).
What a waste of human endeavour. An inspector has upheld an enforcement notice requiring the removal of a pair of gates over 1m in height and 2.5m from the highway at a house in Surrey, finding that planning permission was required (DCS Number 400-012-202).
A recently decided appeal relating to a proposed farm worker’s dwelling in the county of Durham (DCS Number 200-005-060) brings us back to a Blog from February Nearly four years on and deleted guidance is still in use. In that Blog we noted inspectors’ unwillingness to let go of Annex A to PPS7 notwithstanding that this guidance has been deleted. In the Durham appeal the inspector noted that no accounts had been submitted to confirm the viability of the farm business. The appellant argued, however, that the Embleton Parish Council & Anor, R v Gaston  case concluded that there is no need to produce financial justification for a farm dwelling. The inspector acknowledged that this judgment highlights that the test under paragraph 55 of the NPPF is different from that under Annex A of PPS7, in that it simply requires a judgement of whether the proposed agricultural enterprise has an essential need for a worker to live there or not. Nevertheless, she recorded that there is no indication that in making that judgement, the decision-maker does not need to take any account of financial evidence, and in fact in the Embleton case financial evidence had been submitted by various parties to the decision-maker.
Following on from the discussion of matters of taste in Living the countryside idyll here is an inspector who is not imposing a particular taste, much as local residents might have wished him to.
With the current vogue for all things vintage, handmade and homely it is no surprise to see a proposal for a new country cottage. However, a cottage style residence in a ‘traditional’ orchard in Warwickshire would appear incongruous in a village conservation area, an inspector decided (DCS Number 400-011-575).
We recognise that we might be going on a bit about the shortcomings of the prior approval regime……but we’re not stopping. Here is another daft outcome.
A planning authority in Yorkshire refused prior approval for a householder extension on the basis that development had already commenced and therefore could not benefit from the prior approval process (DCS Number 400-011-347). At appeal, an inspector recognised that there is no provision in the GPDO for a retrospective application for prior approval. The appellant stated, however, that the existing extension would be demolished. On that basis the inspector decided that the application related to a proposal for a new development and allowed the appeal.
There is sometimes uncertainty about whether it is required or permissible to provide an inspector with updated information. A recent court case, Robinson v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government 22/1/16, provides a steer in respect of housing land supply figures, but is it in the right direction?
An inspector decided that a cheque payment for a prior approval application failed to start the clock ticking and as a consequence the council had made its decision within 56 days (DCS Number 200-004-820).